Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2014 - 05:13pm PT
|
NASA, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Pentagon, the insurance industry, etc?
What a laugh.
And I suppose your sources are solid as El Cap.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
|
No, you idiot. This is from NASA:
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
And this:
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.(1)
And there's a LOT more, if you look.
Does it make any difference to your belief?
No, I didn't think it would.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
So what?
Chiloe posted the paper that deals with the early 20th century warming.
That didn't make any difference either.
Face it bud, you're a blockhead.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2014 - 05:28pm PT
|
Nope.
Tell us the quote from your wife again, that was a good one.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2014 - 05:34pm PT
|
I think your wife is your right hand.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
|
The denialist model, ignoring the near certainty of the science explanation of warming over the entire last 100 years, has its own version of reality:
Temperature increases due to ocean fusion energy from 1915 to 1942,
then time disappears for 35 years,
then temperature increases from 1976 to 2000, due to the ocean reactor starting up again,
but then it ran out ouf fuel,
and is waiting for a refill from Exxon and Ayn Rand.
After all, one theory is as good as another.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
|
You are free to make up your own fantasy, prove it using all the unicorns available, and publish it in a fictional blog.
But climate scientists have not said the global heat imbalance has stopped, only that there is a temporary slowing of measured surface temp rise. Remember that most common surface temp models fail to account for a warm arctic.
Clear and proven is the heat going into the oceans and melting ice, which is where 95% of the heat imbalance goes, and which are reflected in continued rising sea levels.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2014 - 08:41pm PT
|
From your own out of context quotes, in which you fail to quote the main point, that the UK Met and NASA and NOAA ALL say:
Total Global warming / heat imbalance still happening.
from your UK Met link:
The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.
The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role.
The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
|
From your NOAA link - explains that surface temps are lulled only temporarily and will have to rise due to the heat imbalance.
"The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon."
"Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents."
...
"That mixing coupled with water's naturally large heat capacity makes the global ocean the Earth’s biggest absorber of heat; scientists estimate the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. When analyzing temperature patterns at different depths of the ocean, scientists observed that deep ocean temperatures—measured more than a half-mile down from the surface—began to rise significantly around 2000, while shallower waters warmed more slowly. This divergence took place at the same time that a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, was shifting to a negative phase."
"Evidence for the global influence of these La Niñas comes from an innovative model experiment by a team of scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. When they forced a climate model to closely follow observed temperatures in the tropical Pacific—mirroring the repeated La Niña events—the model simulated no significant trend in global warming since 2000. This led the group to believe that global temperatures would have continued to rise throughout the last decade if not for the prolonged cooling in the Pacific."
...
Unlike the ENSO cycle, which affects the climate on a year-to-year basis, the PDO affects the climate on decadal timescales. Since the late 1990s, the negative phase of the PDO cycle has contributed to cooler sea temperatures at the surface of the tropical (similar to La Niña) and northeastern Pacific. Strong prevailing winds during the negative phase of the PDO also stir up the ocean and mix surface waters down into the deep ocean, allowing heat to penetrate to greater depths.
The deep ocean may have been able to "hide" excess heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases, contributing to the warming “pause” in the last decade, but scientists know that heat energy doesn't just disappear. Eventually, natural ocean circulation may bring some of the extra heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface, which can happen during an El Niño event, for example.
Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate change—melting ice in Greenland, the retreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level rise—continue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming. Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade."
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2014 - 08:42pm PT
|
From your own out of context quotes, in which you fail to quote the main point, that the UK Met and EPA and NASA etc ALL say:
Total Global warming / heat imbalance still happening.
from NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/
Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.
This trend — referred to as a "global warming hiatus" — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?
According to Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, and the principal investigator of a space-borne sensor called the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System, or CERES, the answer is almost certainly no.
"Heating is still going on," he said. "It's just not in terms of the surface air temperature."
Loeb explained the science behind that statement Tuesday, Aug. 5, during a talk at NASA Langley titled "The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?"
Though Loeb believes there are a handful of short-term factors that drive changes in surface air temperature, like the El Niño and La Niña phenomena that cause temperature fluctuations in the tropical eastern Pacific approximately every two years, he thinks there is a longer term factor that is a significant and overlooked contributor.
"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects surface temperature," Loeb said. "It's a pattern of temperature shifts, primarily over the Pacific, that occurs about every 20 or 30 years."
Historically, those shifts have coincided with changes in surface temperature.
"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has a very distinctive pattern. During the positive phase, surface temperature rises more rapidly," he said. "During the negative phase, the rate of temperature increase slows down, hence a hiatus. It's very compelling when you see the actual observations."
Loeb showed measurements during his talk demonstrating steady increases in surface air temperature from 1920 to 1940 and again from 1976 to 2000, periods when the decadal oscillation was in a positive phase. From 1940 to 1975, and again beginning in 2001, temperatures leveled out in concert with negative oscillation phases.
Surface air temperatures have increased by approximately 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the early 20th century. On this timescale, the hiatuses look like short ledges along a graph of global average surface air temperature with an otherwise steep upward slope.
"You can't just look at short periods of time," Loeb said. "You have to look at the record over a long period of time to see the pattern. There will be natural fluctuations at shorter time scales, but we really shouldn't conclude that that's a change and global warming is going away."
Even as surface air temperatures are currently holding relatively steady, Loeb believes there's still another issue to take into consideration.
"Observations are showing us the planet is still taking up heat, but it is just showing up in a different place," he said.
That different place is the ocean.
In other words, as humans and nature continue to apply pressure to the Earth's climate through increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, temperatures are still rising. But as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation briefly tames temperatures at the planet's surface, the oceans are where the real heating is happening.
"If you add extra heat to the Earth system, approximately 93 percent of that extra heat ends up stored in the ocean, and the ocean is very deep," Loeb said. "When we look at air temperature, we are just looking at the surface. There's a whole deep ocean where heat can be stored."
Scientists are studying ocean temperatures with instruments known as “Argo floats.” These instruments drift freely throughout the world’s oceans, collecting temperature and salinity measurements to a depth of around 6000 feet. The floats rise to the surface and transmit their data to a satellite every 10 days. Currently, more than 3,600 Argo floats distributed in the planet's oceans show that the oceans are taking up heat over time, according to Loeb.
Combine that with data from NASA's CERES sensor, which shows the rate of heat uptake by the whole planet is nearly constant, and it becomes clear that the planet is still warming, even as the increase in surface air temperatures lull temporarily.
"Heat can be redistributed," Loeb said of the energy. "Changes in the circulation patterns in the ocean and atmosphere will result in redistribution of the heat — and that is what is going on during the different phases of this [Pacific Decadal Oscillation]."
Loeb and the overwhelming majority of his fellow climate scientists argue that as humans continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates — atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements hit 400 parts per million in May 2013 — climate change will continue. Current estimates have global average surface air temperatures rising anywhere from approximately 3 to 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100, depending on how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere and accounting for uncertainty in predictions."
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 12:06am PT
|
It is reassuring to know there are some things you can count on, that a true denialist stays true to his religion, even in the face of his own facts. And those were indeed your own facts, regardless of your divine inspiration to claim to know what they were supposed to mean, something quite different than what the scientists wrote.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 07:46am PT
|
Chief is so invested at this point he is afraid to change his position even though he knows down deep he isn't lined up with reality. Character is being able to accept that something you once believed to be true isn't actually true as you have more information (oh, wow, that's a science-based position!).
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2014 - 05:42pm PT
|
Mark Force,good luck with that.
LOL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2014 - 10:55pm PT
|
I worked through the paper Chylek et al. (2014), “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as a dominant factor of oceanic influence on climate,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1689–1697, doi:10.1002/2014GL059274 because it provides a way of looking at the features of the 20th and 21st century mean global surface temperature and provides some hints at what components contribute.
And also because it shows the amount of “unknown” bits remaining.
The “model” used in the paper is a simple one, the surface temperature depends on some sum of time series. It starts out with the description:
T(t) = A₀ + A₁ GHG(t) + A₂ AER(t) + A₃ SOL(t) + A₄ VOLC(t) + A₅ ENSO(t) + ε
where GHG(t) is the green house gas, AER(t) the human aerosol, SOL(t) solar and VOLC(t) volcanic radiative forcing time series. The ENSO(t) is the El Nino Southern Oscillation index and the paper will also consider the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index, AMO(t):
T(t) = A₀ + A₁ GHG(t) + A₂ AER(t) + A₃ SOL(t) + A₄ VOLC(t) + A₅ ENSO(t) + A₆ AMO(t) + ε’
the task is to find the coefficients that multiply each of the various time series, the A₀, A₁, A₂, A₃, A₄, A₅, and A₆ which can be done with a simple Least Squares Fit procedure. The two terms ε and ε’ are the bits not explained by this model.
Now we are using the measured (or estimated) time series, not a model, but the observations. For the temperature series the authors took the NASA GIS temperature, but I could actually redo the analysis with any temperature time series.
The data for the time series is available online, though some of it I had to extract from the figures of papers which I cross checked with the figures in Chylek to make sure I had the same data.
One feature of this analysis is separating the GHG from the AER, which are usually treated together. I’m not sure why the authors did this, but after repeating the analysis I have some guesses. But first let’s go through the analysis.
The forcing terms for the GHG, VOLC and SOL are plotted here:
There are four different models considered for the AER term, each was considered separately
AER1 is from the GIS site, AER2 is taken from the IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 document, AER3 from the paper by Mascioli and AER4 I took to be the same as AER1 up to the dotted line departure, which it follows. That dotted line simulates the decrease in sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere after the 1980s.
Fitting these time series we get four different solutions. I then add the AMO and do the whole thing over again for the four aerosol sets.
The result for model 1 (M1) is:
and for model 2 (M2)
in both cases these appear to fit quite well, and the addition of the AMO seems rather subtle. But if we take the residual of M1 without the AMO we can compare the two. The residual is just the difference of the GIS temp series with our fit:
T(t) - [ A₀ + A₁ GHG(t) + A₂ AER(t) + A₃ SOL(t) + A₄ VOLC(t) + A₅ ENSO(t) ] = ε
which is plotted here on the right vertical axis, and the AMO(t) on the left
The case that Chylek et al. are making is that the inclusion of the AMO(t) explains a lot of the residual variation, since they appear to track well on the decadal time scale.
If you just look at the various contributions to the temperature, T(t), you find:
which is the utility of doing this sort of analysis.
What is shown here is that the GHG+AER is the largest contribution to the temperature. The AMO is the next larger component, and then the SOL, VOLC and ENSO are minor contributors.
The residual of the M1 + AMO looks like this:
which is relatively constant with a lot of juggling about. We’ve plotted:
ε’ = T(t) - [ A₀ + A₁ GHG(t) + A₂ AER1(t) + A₃ SOL(t) + A₄ VOLC(t) + A₅ ENSO(t) + A₆ AMO(t) ]
If the values are plotted in a histogram,
the horizontal axis is the value of ε’ taken between the labels, and the vertical axis is the number of times that ε’ was between those numbers. It represents a probability of ε’ having some value.
The blue bars are for the actual values, the red bars are for a normal distribution that has a σ = 0.07ºC standard deviation.
For this analysis, we could interpret ε’ as a random value which has a 63% chance of being between -0.07ºC and+0.07ºC.
The rest of the temperature time series is explained as a combination of the measured values of green house gases and aerosols along with the AMO (the majority) with small contributions provided by the solar variation, volcanic aerosols and the ENSO.
Note that this provides an explanation of the entire time series from 1900.
What I didn’t like about this paper is the fine tuning to get a result that was consistent with their strongest assertion: that the AMO always improves the fit. Splitting the GHG and the AER runs into problems or the model without the AMO that depends on the years over the time the model is fit. I found the that the coefficient A₂ was negative when the T(t) values beyond 2006 were included in the fit.
This is an unphysical result, since the aerosols can’t have an arbitrary forcing sign, at least I don’t know of any physical model that allows that.
Further, when they include the AMO term, all the AER model coefficients have the wrong sign. They didn't mention this in their paper.
I reran the analysis with the GHG and AER terms combined and the results are very similar, the conclusion isn’t that different, except that the AER4 model performs as well as the AER1 model with the AMO term. This is expected since the hypothesized reduced cooling in the AER4 model occurs around the time of the onset of the latest AMO cycle.
The result isn’t as pretty in their paper if they did the analysis that way. The major problem was that they didn’t describe the details of their choices of the time period over which they fit the data, and over which they calculated the variance terms (the dreaded R²).
These are details that I wasn’t that concerned about for this post.
Rather, one can conclude from this sort of analysis (and the one that Chiloe reproduced up above), that the majority of the global mean temperature, including the so called “hiatus,” is explained by the various observed processes. Here we’ve included the AMO.
The remaining “random” stuff is small, very small compared to the large contribution to the temperature that the anthropogenic activity, the human generated GHG and AER.
Right now it would be best to state the the inclusion of the AMO is a good candidate for explaining the variations that take place over decades. This is both an observational challenge and a challenge for the complex climate models.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Nice analysis Eddy.
Unfortunately your still stuck on stupid by using fudged data and erroneous assumptions.
The assumed positive feedbacks are not manifesting as forecast, consequently the sensitivity to a tiny increase of a trace gas is trending downwards towards reality.
There is no numerical climate solution to a non existent problem that will stand the test of time and raw data reality, i.e. 20+/- years without atmospheric warming statistically significant from zero, overall global ice cover increases, trends towards severe NH winters over large parts of the hemisphere, increasing snow cover and duration, deceleration of the Holocene sea level rise, etc, etc.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Unfortunately your still stuck on stupid by using fudged data and erroneous assumptions.
if what you say is true, rick, you can certainly demonstrate it with an equally, logic based argument that includes data and a well described analysis.
You could also demonstrate just what is wrong with my analysis. If you would like me to use another time series for any of the inputs, or all of the inputs, please indicate where those time series are...
The analysis is quite simple otherwise... in itself it doesn't "prove" anything, but it shows that the consensus view of 20th and 21st century climate change is consistent with the data, and to an amazing degree of accuracy.
This simple model leaves a small, "random" variance of ±0.07ºC left to try to understand, while explaining the ≈+1ºC change in global mean surface temperature observed during the past century.
The only assumption is that the sum of the inputs is a good model of that temperature time series. It does not require the appeal to some other magic to produce an explanation.
Not only that, it is largely in agreement with the computer models which contain our best understanding of the climate down to a very fundamental level.
You have your opinion, it happens to be wrong on the science. Perhaps you should concede that and move onto the politics of policy.
You cannot provide any alternative analysis to that of the above. If you can, do so.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!